Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7356056" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, I think this is one of the main areas of confusion. I admit to not being very knowledgeable about Forge terms...mostly because I wasn't really involved in online discussion when the Forge was still around, but also because I tend to prefer a more conversational discussion than a technical one. I get the distinction you are making between Backstory and backstory. I'm going to take your comments as a starting point to kind of toss some ideas out there. I'm interested to know what you think. So the Framing of a scene draws on the Backstory....known to the players...in order to set up some kind of conflict or situation that demands that they act. In that sense, Framing is the establishment of factors that dictate the players' options. Do you think that's accurate? To me, I think this can also be the purpose of little b backstory, where perhaps the players don't know. So to use the bribe-ability of guards as an example....is it really that different to openly Frame a scene and explain that guards cannot be bribed, than it is to not state that openly and let the players discover it only through attempts to bribe or to find out if it's possible? Both limit what is available to the player. The only real distinction to me is that in the second example, the player "wastes a turn" finding out the guards can't be bribed. Is that the point of concern? Doesn't the GM's Framing potentially have just as much impact that secret backstory may have on action declaration? Aren't the players prevented from having their characters bribe the guards either way? So one limit on agency happens up front and openly, and the other is only discovered through play....would that be the primary difference? In this sense, couldn't it almost be argued that player agency is even more limited by Framing? Because depending on how the GM Frames things, the players may not even consider certain actions, whether or not they have a chance to succeed. To apply this more specifically to Permerton's concern about player authorship of fiction through action declaration....the Framing certainly seems to remove the ability of the players to author things into the fiction. Anything that contradicts the GM's framing is off the table. Which is fine....I think most people would accept this with no question....but I just don't see it as being all that different. Just some thoughts about it all.....generally, my idea of player agency is different than the specific use Permerton has assigned to it in regard to authorship ability....but I still see limitations however you look at it.</blockquote>

Verification